The effects of property laws on the process of restitution and compensation in post-communist Albania, under the framework of transitional justice. Other 2% Chart 11 I don’t know 23% No 9% Yes 66% As to the question whether this law infringes again the property rights of former owners, the answer is as follows. 66.42% responded with YES. Source: Survey developed on the effects of property laws on the return and compensation process in post-communist Albania, on the Albanian transition. 2019 According to the Venice Commission’s Opinion84 what is first analyzed in this law, in its entirety, is its compliance with and respect for Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR.85 What also needs to be paid attention is the effort of not violating a right by trying to fix another one. This commission emphasizes the importance of a fair balance between the public interest and the individual interests of the one who is infringed on property rights. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Albania86, human rights restrictions are permitted only when made by law and in the protection of public interests and the protection of the rights of others. However, this must always be in proportion with the situation that dictates it. So, the principle of public interest and the principle of proportionality are principles that must necessarily be applied in such a case as legalization. After this law came out, according to this opinion issued shortly one year after (2007), it was pointed out that in the case of the legalization law it can be argued that the solution provided by this law does not bring a fair balance, since the interests of the formerproperty owners have been set aside, as opposed to the interests of those who have built illegal buildings. In a developed state, with a consolidated tradition of respect for human rights and the rule of law, such a solution would be difficult to accept. So it seems that their opinion has been significantly influenced by the Albanian context, but on the other hand, it is widely accepted that such practice is difficult to apply in a state that respects human rights. Legalization came as a result of the state’s attempt to resolve the situation by adapting to the inevitable circumstances of the country. In fact, even the Venice Commission (2007) recognizes that when a law tries to regulate social unrest, it can be considered as a legal reason even though it may have other consequences, but it cannot reach a definitive decision that it indeed calmed these social unrests, what is more, in a proportionate way. Returning to the public interest and the common good, as recognized by the Constitution, not only ours, but many of the world’s constitutions, as well as international human rights instruments, this interest should not be confused or interpreted as such when it comes to the interests of private persons.87 According to the US Supreme Court’s approach, an individual’s property cannot be taken away for the benefit of another private person 84. European Commission for democracy through Law. (Venice Commission). Amicuc curiae Opinion On the land on legalization, urban planning and integration of unauthorized buildings of the Republic of Albania.Opinion no.433.2007. (Strasbourg 18 June 2007) 85. The Convention was ratified by the Albanian state in 1996. Law No. 8137, dated 31.07.1996 “On the ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”. 86. Related Articles of Property and Expropriation. 87. 91 According to the case James and others v.The United Kingdom paragraph 40. The court agrees with the applicants that a deprivation of property affected for no reason other than to confer a private benefit on a private party cannot be “in the public interest”. Nonetheless, the compulsory transfer of property from one individual to another way, depending upon the circumstances, constitute a legitimate means for promoting the public interests. In this connection even where the texts in force employ expressions like “for the public use”, no common principle can be identified in the constitutions, legislation and case-law of the Contracting States that would warrant understanding the notion of public interest as outlawing compulsory 23